AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through the above- mentioned civil revisions, the petitioners (Mst. Murad Bibi & Ahmad Raza Khan, respectively) have challenged the judgment and decrees dated 15.05.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ba lawalpur, whereby two appeals filed by each of both were dismissed, and the consolidated judgment and decNes dated 10.01.199! Passed by the learned Civil JudgE Bahawalpur, whereby two suits for declaration filed by bath the petitioners were dismissed and suit for possession by respondent No. 1 was decreed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Ahmad Raza Khan was original owner of suit house No. 148-B, Model Town-B, Bahawalpur. Half cf the house has been claimed through Tamleek-Nama dated 24.06.1980 and other half through oral Tamleek by Mst. Murad Bibi, who is his wife. The suit was filed on 05.09.1982 against Ahmad Raza Khan and Mst. Samia Durrani. The other suit was filed by Mst.
Samia Durrani against Mst. Murad Bibi and Ahmad Raza Khan with regard to 300 square feet property, part of above-mentioned house claiming through registered Tamleek-Nama dated 06.08.1982 by Ahmad Raza Khan favour of Mst. Samia Durrani. The third suit was filed by Ahrnad Raza Khan against Mst. Samia Durrani and Mst. Murad Bibi for declaration that gift deed dated 03.08.1982 is not operative due to non-delivery of possession. All the three suits were consolidated and the proceedings were ordered in the suit filed by Mst. Murad Bibi. The consolidated issues were framed on 28.02.1989. The parties were invited to produce their respective evidence.
3. The plaintiff (Mst. Murad Bibi) got recorded statements of her witnesses and on 15.07.1991 her learned counsel made a statement that he will get the statement of plaintiff in affirmative and rebuttal evidence recorded after the close of evidence of other side. Ahmad Raza Khan himself appeared as D.W-1 and also produced documentary evidence. The right to produce evidence of Mst. Samia Durrani was closed on 11.12.1993. The Trial. Court vide judgment and decrees dated 10.01.1994 dismissed the suits for declaration filed by Ahmad Raza Khan and Mst. Mural Bibi and decreed that of Mst. Samia Durrani, Mst, Murad Bibi and Ahmad Raza Khan filed two appeals each, which were dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decrees dated 15.05.2000.
Hence, these civil revisions.
3.. . Learned 'counsel for the petitioner (Mst. Murad Bibi) at the very outset stated that right to appear as a witness was reserved by the plaintiff and after the close of evidence of defendants, she was not asked to appear as a witness. Further stated that the evidence of Mst. Samia Durrani was closed, therefore, the Courts below fell in error while decreeing her suit and dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel states that as the copy of Tamleek-Nama is Ex.D-1/1, which does not bear the signatures of Mst. Samia durrani for acceptance of Tamleek and further learned counsel has referred the documentary evidence produced by Ahmad Raza Khan Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5, which relate to the family suits. It has been further argued that Mst. Samia Durrani left the house of her husband prior to the alleged Tamleek in her favour, therefore, the judgments and decrees. Passed by the Courts below are not sustainable under the law.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Ahmad Raza Khan) states that the execution of Tamleek-Nama in favour of Mst. Samia Durrani, who is daughter in law of petitioner, has not been denied but it has been challenged on the point that the possession was never delivered to Mst. Samia Durrani; that the judgments and decrees passed against him while dismissing the suit and appeal are nullity in the eye of law and are liable to be reversed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (Mst. Samia durrani) states that Ahmad Khan has admitted in his written statement filed in the suit filed by Mst. Murad Bibi that this portion of house has been transferred through registered Tamleeknama and possession has also been delivered to Mst. Samia Durrani, with full detail in Para 5 of written statement as well as written statement filed in the suit filed by Mst. Samia Durrani it has been admitted that the suit property measuring 300 square feet has been gifted to Mst. Samia Durrani and suit has been admitted and stated that he has no objection if the suit is decreed. With regard to the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner (Mst. Murad Bibi) that she was not given right to appear before the Court as her own witness, learned counsel stated that as Ahmad Raza Khan has produced no evidence against Mst. Murad Bibi and evidence of Mst. Samia Durrani was closed, therefore, there was no occasion to give her opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence. With regard to the appearance of Mst. Murad Bibi in' affirmative evidence after the close of evidence of defendant, learned counsel states that the evidence of Mst. Samia Durrani was closed on 11.12:1993 and after that there were 3/4 successive dates for hearing of the arguments but Mst. Murad Bibi never claimed her right to appear before the Court as her own witness and further that even in the grounds of appeal, she has not agitated this point before the first Appellate Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly, Ahmad Raza Khan was the original owner of suit house. Mst. Murad Bibi craims the suit house on the basis of two transactions. First half of the house she claimed through written Tamleek and other half through oral Tamleek by the owner.
8. So far as, the written Tamleek is concerned.
The original document has not been produced. Only the abstract from the Register of Stamp Vendor has been produced as ExP-1 and also the abstract from his Register, who is allegedly a Petition Writer, has been produced as Ex.P-2. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below against Mst. Murad Bibi. When claim of Mst. Murad Bibi has been rejected by the Courts below and so far as the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner (Mst. Murad Bibi) that she was not given right to rebut the evidence and to appear as her own witness in affirmative evidence, is concerned. I am clear in my mind that the reserving affirmative statement by the plaintiff till the close of evidence of defendants, even if recorded, cannot be used in affirmative evidence. When the plaintiff (Mst. Murad Bibi) herself opted to appear after the close of defence evidence, therefore, non-recording of her affirmative evidence makes no difference as even if her statement would have been recorded that could not have been used as affirmative evidence in her favour So, far as, the right of rebuttal evidence is concerned. There is no rebuttal evidence by the defendants st her, therefore, there was no occasion to give her -.Unity to produce rebuttal evidence. Even otherwise, be close of evidence of Mst. Samia Durrani there were excessive dates of hearing when the case was for arguments. Mst. Murad Bibi never claimed her '0 produce the evidence and even at appellate stage she has not pressed this point. This point first time before revisional stage is not valid.
U. So far as, the case of Ahmad Raza Khan is concerned . There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below. His version has been disbelieved by the Courts below and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Ordinarily does not reinterpret the evidence which the two Courts below have already interpreted. When the suits of Mst. Murad Bibi and Ahmad Raza Khan have been dismissed by both the Courts below. Now remains the suit of Mst. Samia Durrani in field. The execution of registered gift deed in her favour has not been denied by the maker, Ahmad Raza Khan. The written statement has been filed where the prayer of decree of suit for possession has not been denied by Ahmad Raza Khan, therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in favour of Mst. Samia Durrani.
When there was no denial of facts by Ahmad Raza Khan and suit of Mst. Murad Bibi has also been dismissed, therefore, there was no hurdle in granting the decree in favour of Mst. Samia Durrani, which the Courts below rightly granted and maintained the decree in favour of Mst. Samia Durrani. 11, In the light of what has been discussed above, both the civil revisions fail and . The same are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Civil revision .